Gender: Intelligence and Historical Figures

I've done a lot of research on this topic and I finally found what the real difference of intelligence is between men and women.

Let's look at the following bell curve:

The average IQ score is between 90 and 110. As you can see, most of the females fall under the average IQ category. Whereas, males seem to have more of a variety of intelligence test scores.

What does this all mean?

This means that there are more men who have low IQ scores than women, but this also means there are more men with higher IQ scores than women. Some people believe either gender is inherently smarter, but that is a mistake.

None of the sexes is "smarter" than the other, because even if we argued that there are more genius IQ'd men than women, the counterargument would be that there are also more idiot men than idiot women! This in turn goes to my next point...

Why are most notable people in history men?

There are many reasons behind this question. One of them is that most genius people tend to be men, but the other main reason has nothing to do with intelligence or mental strength. It more has to do with socialized roles that females have adopted, as well as males, and this is what prevented females from being "notable" throughout history.

These women include:

Cleopatra

Cleopatra sought to defend Egypt from the expanding Roman Empire. She was a strong female amongst oppressive males. She took this power to improve her society.

Elizabeth I

Queen of England during a time of great economic and social change, she saw England cemented as a Protestant country. During her reign, she witnessed the defeat of the Spanish Armada leaving Britain to later become one of the world’s dominant superpowers.

Florence Nightingale

By serving in the Crimean war, Florence Nightingale was instrumental in changing the role and perception of the nursing profession. Her dedicated service won widespread admiration and led to a significant improvement in the treatment of wounded soldiers.

Susan B. Anthony

Susan B. Anthony began campaigning within the temperance movement and this convinced her of the necessity for women to have the vote. She toured the US giving countless speeches on the subjects of human rights. She must have had a lot of strength and mental prowess to convince people to agree for women to vote, in a society full of oppression and patriarchy.

And many more!

In my opinion, I think that the fact that there were even any females who were notable throughout history is very impressive, with all the oppression and sexism going on during the past centuries.

Summary

Throughout history we've learned that men and women have acquired different roles, each of them with their own importance and definition. Intelligence scores that are nowadays seen as IQ scores have also been made to compare different social groups, including men and women.

Most Helpful Girl

The answer is quite simple. Women didn’t have access to the same educational opportunities, in the past, as men did. In the 17th-19 centuries, women (if they were privileged enough), were given a very basic literacy education of reading and writing. The sole focus was ‘dressing them up’ for the marriage mart, or preparing them for the workforce. This involved teaching them household maintainance, needlework etc ( if they were lower class). And musical accomplishments, dancing, needlepoint, art, possibly a language and manners (if upper class). Boys has much greater freedom. They learnt latin, Greek, reading and writing, algebra, languages, history etc. as they were working towards a profession.

What Guys Said 20

Cleopatra surrendered Egyptian sovereignty to Rome further overthrew her husband/brother and killed her sister to gain power. She sought out tyrannical power in the mediterean by first becoming the dictator Julius Caesar's lover and having his kids and then by becoming power hungry mark oligarch Anthony's husband and mother of his children. She was a brutal monster just like the other powerful leaders of her time such as Caesar, Pompey, Herod etc but she was a good govenener of her country she destroyed herself by needless war.Queen Elizabeth 1st was a great stabilizer of England compared to her sister and father. She smartly left the succession of the crown to king James of Scotland and in that way she United the two.

I have a thought. I know it's popular to think that all men saw women as property, but if this was the case, why would any of them allow or even support women's rights?Throughout history women have been given more and more rights, and it couldn't have been done without men.

Oh yay, some men helped get rid of a system which was men's fault in the first place, good for them. Now, I don't really believe in the idea of faulting members of a group in present times for the actions of that same group in the past, but if we are going to apply that logic it's ridiculous to congratulate men for a few of them helping to fix a system they put in place in the first place.

@cipher42 But they didn't, they were born into it. If you blame men you can also blame women. Explained by the next sentence; "When asked by Allied forces every German said they weren't Nazis and hated them, if so, how did Hitler stay in power?"Another sentence I also heard in school; "Seeing bullying and doing nothing about it makes you as complicit as the bully"

Point being that doing nothing also makes you complicit, when women would accept themselves as less they allowed the system to continue. If you say it's not their fault because they couldn't do anything about it then it's not mens fault either as they also had no way to change to change their upbringing and the laws.

No one consciously put such a system in place, if you believe this then you must believe animals are also fully conscious thinkers. Men are the biological leader and have been throughout all of history, since Man became Man. And even when Man was an animal the male would still be the leader.

I just said I didn't blame them, I'm just applying the same logic you are, treating men as a monolithic group consistent throughout time and inheriting the blame and credit for the actions of men from past generations. Reread my comment and try again.

@cipher42 The point being that men are just inherently the leaders, it is mens biological role to lead and provide. Of course some women can do the same but even if you had a new society in which no patriarchal rules were enforced men would still be in more leadership and highly intellectual roles (scientists, philosophers). So, the number of notable women in leadership or scientific positions wouldn't be so much different.

Really the only people I see truly being oppressed were peasants in general, women did have to follow her husband but he also had to work to provide for her, and men did really awful work.

@Naydyonov It would be different, which is why it's different now. Since the 50s, women have been gaining more rights than during any historic period. Which is why we have so many women in education now, in science, in philosophy, in every academic field, women are doing amazing work now that we have the opportunity. Men aren't inherently better leaders. Angela Merkel is leader of the free world.

Also no. The oppressed aren't complicit in a system of oppression, that's ridiculous. Would you say that slaves were slaves because they let it happen to themselves? No, obviously not.

Saying that you didn't treat another person like an equal human being because of the culture at the time is a lazy copout. Enough people were smart enough to not have slaves and to educate women. You can always question the system you live in. There's enough studies that show that there is no intellectual difference between men and women and different races once you control for socioeconomic background.

@Felicia5567 When you don't resist you don't stay 100% the victim as I believe. Which is why I salute the slaves who fought for the North, or those who rebelled and created the country called Haiti. "Angela Merkel is leader of the free world.". This is questionable. She has no regard for borders or immigration policy which is a big issue to many. "Men aren't inherently better leaders." Men are leaders more often thus by numbers you will find more good leaders in the male than the female category, regardless of which sex is better at leading if one at all. "Enough people were smart enough to not have slaves and to educate women" And the majority didn't have slaves and women did get basic education once education was nationalized. "You can always question the system you live in."It's very easy to do that nowadays because we have access to so much knowledge, but imagine you met a man from the future and he said that dogs will be given as many rights as humans. You'd think 'wtf?' no?

Whether you resist or not, you are a victim. That is such a dangerous slope you're taking. It's an argument that rape apologists make. They say if women don't fight back it's not rape, even though it has been established that many people just freeze in situations of distress. And then there's Stockholm syndrome, or the fact that thousands of women got burned as witches if they did something out of the norm, etc. So you're wrong. The oppressors are at fault, not the oppressed, whether there is resistance or not.

Angela Merkel is the leader of the free world, even if some idiots oppose migrants. Men aren't inherently better leaders than women. Men just held the power until now. Luckily that's changing so you can think about your nonsense again in 50 years. The law of numbers doesn't matter if you banned one group from participating.

@Felicia5567 Well if she doesn't report to the police then Wtf?I love when I say something and people say "that's what a rape apologist would say" "that's what a nazi would say". I believe rapist should get maximum punishment as a by the way.

My point is that if you don't stand up for yourself then you have to know that you let them do whatever they did to you. Personally if I die, I'm dying a free man. If that means I'm a slave then I'm rushing those sons of bitches and I'm killing them till they put 6 rounds in me. "even if some idiots oppose migrants."people equally have the right to support and to condemn immigration, especially this type of border hopping with no documents type.

"The law of numbers doesn't matter if you banned one group from participating."Women have had the right for a few decades and only a few decided to pursue the job.

You do know that men were built to be the leaders right? In a natural setting men will almost always be seen as the leader.

Men weren't built to be leaders. Men assumed that position due superiority in physical strength. Leadership nowadays doesn't rely on physical strength. Yes, women have been having the opportunity to take leadership roles. About 40% of all countries have had female leadership in the past 50 years. And that number is increasing. Rome wasn't built in a day.

You don't have the right to oppose migration if your own greedy wars caused the trouble. It's selfish and morally flawed.

Yes, please talk about what you would do if you were oppressed without knowing what it is actually like. Women have many reasons to not report rape. It is a hugely traumatic event and reliving it by telling the story to the police, in court, dealing with the shame associated with it, isn't worth it for many women. We just want to continue our lives and forget it ever happened.

If you haven't lived through trauma that prevents you from sleeping for days and weeks, that makes you feel scared to death in your own home, that flashes back up in front of your eyes whenever someone touches you, that prevents you from eating, that will haunt you your entire life, then don't talk about how you'd do so much better.

There are many stories from women and men in concentration camps who did fight back and were killed. Then there are the millions who wanted to live. There is nothing wrong with wanting to live, it doesn't make you any less noble. People might have families and kids they want to live for. If you get yourself killed, you can't protect anyone you love.

Either way, you have a right to want to be alive. If there is a movement against oppression and you take part in it or organize it, great. But solo action didn't do anything useful for people facing large scale oppression.

@Felicia5567 First off I was a child when the wars in the Middle east happened so i had absolutely no say in the matter, not that they asked. Secondly countries still hold the right to restrict migration as much as they see fit.

Yes, like all of Europe which either sided with Germany of surrendered to them. Governments that sold out the country to Mister Adolph. When you stop fighting you're done for.If not for the soviet union, America, and Britain, all the people in camps would be killed. There was actually an uprising in a camp, they rushed the guards and a few hundred managed to escape the camp into the forest. Much better than all 100% of them being killed.

A leader needs confidence and common sense. A leader can't make emotional decisions, because those tend to end very badly. If you accept migrants out of compassion (emotion) but say that it doesn't matter that they don't have documents (logic), it's an emotional decision that ignores logic, have documents for identity

If you refuse refugees and send them back where they came from, even though you are responsible for it, there are two options. 1) They die like all the Jews on the boats that the U. S. sent back to Europe during WW2. 2) You increase radicalization and risk attacks. Both are stupid. The issues don't go away because you choose to ignore them. Europe and the U. S. have enough to share. Don't put culture over human lives.

Gosh, read a history book. I'm from a country that was overrun by Nazis and my grandparents hid American soldiers in the forest and helped Jews. My grandfather got tortured by the Nazis for not signing the documents with his new German name. So he signed them in order to not die and leave his family behind. Doesn't mean he supported the Nazis or his oppression.

The world isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be. There are all kind of resistances, and people do what they can to stay alive, even if that doesn't include physically fighting someone.

@Felicia5567 Excuse me but war and genocide is very different. You can't compare sending refugees (from Africa the fuck?) to a country in war in which a few people a day are killed to a World War in which a country like the USSR had ~18,500 people killed a day throughout 4 years, Germany had around 3.5 thousand a day throughout 6 years, Poland ~3 thousand a day also throughout 6 years, etc etc.

Jews were being systematically murdered by the millions. The only people who have been killed in similar fashion are Christians in Syria.

"Europe and the U. S. have enough to share. Don't put culture over human lives." if many people from those cultures want me, my family, and my countrymen dead then I will put my people over their people.

It means doing someone. For example helping US soldiers counts. But a person who'd let the soldiers die and rat people out to save their own ass are as guilty.And I'm from a country that never surrendered to the Axis powers. Fight to the death.

Dude, you're from Canada. Your people practiced genocide too. Just ask the First Nations. Or all the wars you're involved in in throughout the world.

If you don't want people to attack you, stop your army from attacking other countries first. The U. S. government has overthrown 54 governments in the past 60 years, many of them democratically elected ones, and Canada often supports this. The Iraq war was illegal under international law. The U. S. drone strikes killed up to 800 civilians between 2009 and 2015 alone. There are international crises and genocides all over the world. Ethnical cleansing within the past few decades: Rwanda, South Sudan, Syria, Myanmar, Paraguay, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Palestine, etc. Don't be naive.

If you shut your mouth to survive, and don't act up, there's nothing wrong with that. It is brave to try and live your life under immensely threatening conditions. Stop judging people when you have no idea what it's like.

You live in some computer game fantasy world where you save the world as a sole hero. That's not what the world is like. You can act up and get yourself killed, but don't judge people who choose to survive. I've had the incredible honor of talking to a woman once who survived being an ISIS sex slave. It was the most horrifying thing I've ever heard in my life. She didn't fight. She was saved. She survived. And now she lives. Now she's able to take care of her child. Getting through that, surviving those atrocities every day and living for someone else, that was true bravery. I had never felt more humbled in my life.

There are terror organizations slaughtering people in countries like Syria and Nigeria, mass starvations in Yemen and in South Sudan, massive poverty in the Central African Republic, the Congo, Malawi, Liberia, where people cannot get their basic needs met, there is slave trade in Libya, there are refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon where people can't access clean water, children in Laos are so undernourished that they have a stunting rate of almost 50%. It's horrifying. And Western imperialism isn't helping.

So you can sit there, being scared, but I won't be. I won't pretend like closing the door to people in need basically means killing them. You want to be a hero? This is your chance.

@Felicia5567 It's mens job to protect their communities. And no, I just know from my own ancestors who went to hell and back to stop whatever enemy was ahead of them. The point isn't to just "act up', the point is to try and stop right away, not give anyone time to do anything bad."So you can sit there, being scared, but I won't be. I won't pretend like closing the door to people in need basically means killing them. You want to be a hero? This is your chance."Look at their birthrates, we just cannot take enough people to solve the problem. The only real solution is to solve the problems inside of Africa. Rather than taking 1/100 people with cancer and giving them chemo, just find a solution to cancer and treat and save the 85 who are still alive,

There aren't humanitarian crises all over Africa. Their are crises in some areas, and those people are fleeing and need help. "Their birthrates": Who are you talking about? The one determinant on birthrates is female education. The more educated women are, the more birth rates go down. So if you want to decrease birth rates, provide women with education and job opportunities.

The point is that sometimes you can't stop it. People in Pakistan can't stop U. S. drone strikes. Slaves couldn't stop being put on boats to America. Women can't stop being raped. You can't protect yourself from everything bad that will ever happen. But you can build an inclusive society and stop creating enemies abroad. As long as the Middle East and Africa are on fire, the rest of the world won't be safe. We are the aristocrats in the French revolution and need to learn to share resources and not repeat the same mistakes. We aren't the good guys, not you as a Canadian, not me as a European/American. Tough luck.

@Felicia5567 "There aren't humanitarian crises all over Africa"even better, means they can just go to a neighbor country that's closer and culturally more similar to theirs.""Their birthrates": Who are you talking about? The one determinant on birthrates is female education. The more educated women are, the more birth rates go down. So if you want to decrease birth rates, provide women with education and job opportunities."Thus removing them from Africa won't solve the problem of African women in Africa having many kids.

@Felicia5567 " We are the aristocrats in the French revolution and need to learn to share resources and not repeat the same mistakes. We aren't the good guys, not you as a Canadian, not me as a European/American. Tough luck."'sorry no, we send humanitarian aid and peace keepers to Africa. people volunteer to help Africans.

You feel free to share half your income with Africans, I however still need to live myself. I do still believe the only solution is solving the problem IN Africa not removing a small fraction of the people away from it.

No, putting them in neighboring countries is not a solution. African countries are the most ethnically diverse countries in the world. Just because most people are black, does not mean they share the same cultures. There are issues between so many small groups. The fact that Britain arbitrarily drew the country borders and separated and put together random groups without organized leadership did not help. Just look at what happened with the Tutsi and the Hutu. The you have countries like Jordan and Lebanon, which already have taken in millions of refugees, despite being developing nations themselves.You just sound so ignorant about international politics, it's unbelievable.

Poverty is a long-term crisis. Escaping death is a short-term crisis. Refugees are a short-term crisis. Hence you can't apply the same solutions to both problems.

Furthermore, many of those neighboring countries can barely provide for themselves. You know why? It's a concept called the resource curse, by which resource rich countries, such as Kenya, which haven't developed adequate institutions yet, are basically bought up by international corporations and foreign government. So, despite being one of the most resource rich countries, Kenya does not make much money, because all the profit go to the West and to China. Which means, Kenyans live in poverty, lose their resources, all while the West grows richer. Why don't they do anything? Because they signed loans with the World Bank and the IMF called structural adjustment loans, which dictate the policies in the country, and usually push for an open market and international trade. Unfortunately, poor people can't take advantage of that. So, there goes your aid. It doesn't come without strings.

It's not about you income, I'm assuming you're not one of the 1%. Longterm solutions involve renegotiating trade deals and providing aid without structural adjustment policies, hence allowing the countries to take control over their own land and resources.Which the West won't allow, because then we lose out cheap resources and labor.

So no, we're not helping Africa, we're putting it in a position it can't escape from. The volontourists and half assed corporate social responsibility programs don't change that. You don't need to donate your income, you need to tell your government to stop exploiting people.

Back to the short term problem, which we caused. Refugees flee because there is no other option. Out governments put them in that spot. So, either you let them in, or you basically say, Sorry we fucked you all over, but I'd rather you go die in a refugee camp than share my huge ass land with you.

@Felicia5567 Well those are international organizations, I did not vote for those people to represent me. Trust me, African cultures as different as they are, are much more similar to one another than to a European or Asian culture. " The you have countries like Jordan and Lebanon, which already have taken in millions of refugees" there are dozens of other countries, like Saudi Arabia-- who have tons of money.

Why can't they go to Asia, why do all solutions have to involve Europe and North America?

What's funny is that for Kenya to be sold out you'd need Kenyans to sign all the agreements.

@Felicia5567 "countries to take control over their own land and resources.Which the West won't allow, because then we lose out cheap resources and labor."You know that most of their governments are highly corrupt right?

"your government to stop exploiting people."If Europe and NA stopped buying things from Africa then no money would flow in and they'd definitely be dying. " Sorry we fucked you all over, but I'd rather you go die in a refugee camp than share my huge ass land with you."Refugees from Pakistan? Do you know that a refugee must stop at the nearest safe haven. That would mean for Afgans -- Uzbekistan for example. Europe is not the nearest safe haven for most of these refugees.

You vote for the people in your government who support those organizations over human rights, and support countries like Saudi Arabia by selling them guns and tanks. You vote for the people in your government who give funds to the World Bank and the IMF. Your vote plays a direct role in this. You just don't care enough to educate yourself.

They can't just go to Asia, because Asian countries have similar agreements with the IMF and the World Bank and have some of the poorest countries in the world, including regular famines. Honestly, open a book about world economics, it's getting tiring that I have to explain every single thing to you.

The issue isn't trade, it's trade agreements that force people to sell things under their value. Why were those trade agreements signed? Because many of these countries suffered from poverty and famines and needed aid to keep their populations alive. Furthermore, the officials told them they would profit from the deals, which was an obvious lie.

And no, I don't trust you, since you have no background in this at all. Africans are not more similar to people in their neighboring countries than Europe and North America. Especially in immigrant countries like Canada and the U. S. there are communities of people from everywhere. Have you ever been to New York or Toronto? There are people from literally everywhere. Whereas they could be killed in their neighboring countries.

Again, if the nearest country isn't safe and doesn't have sufficient resources, then it's not safe. Western countries have the space and the resources to take in more migrants and provide them with a good life. Because as voters and consumers in these countries, through our collective votes and purchases, we support poverty and conflict in the rest of the world.

So don't come up with more stupid arguments before you actually open a book. I did my degree with a double major in Geosciences and International Development, minor in Computer Science, I know my shit.

@Felicia5567 I'm not even of legal voting age so I didn't vote for shit. Africa has been poor since before the IMF, the difference now is that someone gives a shit. Asia is growing really fast now, especially countries like China. In fact a country like China can easily accept a few million people a year and not see much of a difference. I live in Toronto, I see it yes. Where the school near me is mostly Arab, African, and Asian. And when I was there I definitely felt like an outsider. "our collective votes and purchases"If not for our consumerism Chinese would still be poor, so would the rest of Asia. While I don't like consumerism I recognize that if we stop buying cars and electronics then Japanese and Koreans will suffer, if we stop buying textiles than South east Asians will suffer, if we stop buying other electronics and household products Chinese will suffer. Because it's better to have a low paying job than no job at all.

Define poverty. Think about it. The situation in Africa has become worse in many places due to organizations like the IMF and the World Bank, because the policies take away the possibility of development and independent control of resources.China has had massive famines too in recent decades. During one major famine, 45 million people died. And I have included China in my critique, if you read my replies you'll see that I wrote the West and China are buying up land in Africa.

Most consumer goods that get exported to the West are made under horrible conditions. In factories in China they installed nets under the windows so people don't die when they jump, because suicide was so common. So everytime you buy an iPhone and a Macbook and whatever, that's what you support. Everytime you buy from a cheap clothing store, you support women in South Asia and the Middle East basically working in slavery. You buying things doesn't help people there. You only help the companies exploiting them.

I'm sorry you weren't able to make friends, but Asian and Black people helped to build current state Canada and U. S. just as much as white people. You live in a country build on immigration. Your ancestors emigrated to Canada to find a better life. Deal with it. Maybe if you'd just show compassion with people and try to get along with them, you'd have no problem finding friends. I lived in many cities in North America where I was a minority, and I never had issues getting along with people, because I show interest in them and am nice to everyone around me.

@Felicia5567 " to the West are made under horrible conditions" "During one major famine, 45 million people died." People kept dying until capitalism was introduced and westerners started buying Chinese products.

"Your ancestors emigrated to Canada to find a better life"My parents did, because in 1917 these guys called Communists took over the country. "Maybe if you'd just show compassion with people and try to get along with them" "Asian and Black people helped to build current state Canada and U. S. just as much as white people",I mean sort of.. The majority of the population was still white meaning they'd still be the largest part of the labor force. However the ideals that created America were European.

" because I show interest in them " Like they show interest in me. I don't get along with Canadians much either, I mostly get along with people of similar background because they share many ways of thinking and viewing the world

That's a very capitalist view of the world and doesn't necessarily reflect reality. China developed under communism. So did Cuba, which now has better education and health care than the U. S.. There is a lot of literature about what system allows for development, and outside influenced are consistently more important. Singapore developed so quickly because the government own 80% of all housing and provides it to citizens. The government also owns most of the industry. Different system. Works very well.

Yes, and once the majority were First Nations. Things change.So, how is it that you're ok with your parents fleeing to escape communism, but when people who aren't white do it, it's wrong?

There were thousands of Black, Chinese and Indigenous slaves in Canada and the U. S., who were the backbone of the countries development. I hate it when Canadians pretend their history was different from the U. S. in that regard.

@Felicia5567 " China developed under communism." China developed when it let more capitalism into the system. "which now has better education and health care than the U. S." and cars from 1955. No I'm not denying American education is quite shitty, it is. But other capitalist countries have much better levels of education than both the US and Cuba. " how is it that you're ok with your parents fleeing to escape communism, but when people who aren't white do it, it's wrong"You mean Asians? Because there are no Africans or Arabs running from Communist , not today. "There were thousands of Black, Chinese and Indigenous slaves in Canada and the U. S., who were the backbone of the countries development. I hate it when Canadians pretend their history was different from the U. S. in that regard." Yeah there were Chinese, a few thousand. But saying that a few dozen thousand compares to a few million.. sorry no, they did as much as they could with the numbers they had, but that's all.

Population in British Columbia in 1880 was about 50 thousand. During that decade about 18'000 Chinese people were brought in to build the railway. Many of them were sent back again later, doesn't mean they didn't build the country. Seriously man, open a history book. I'm not even from Canada and I know your history better than you do.

I meant people fleeing from oppressive political systems, which there are all over the world. People in Syria and in Nigeria are at imminent risk of death if they disagree with leaders, hence, people are fleeing, just like your parents did.

Yes, cars from the 1950's that still work. Part of the reason that Cuba isn't getting any commercial products is because of the trade embargo that the U. S. put on it because Americans were afraid that the system which worked well in Cuba could sweep over.

So, summary, you haven't made a single sound, researched argument so far. Go back to school and open a book, kiddo.

@Felicia5567Population of Canada 1880: 4,255,000 Chinese Population: 50,000 Chinese population: 1%This is my point, that looking at the general population of Canada the majority of the labor force was still British and French Canadian."people are fleeing, just like your parents did." My parents did it legally and received absolutely no welfare or subsidies. "because Americans were afraid that the system which worked well in Cuba could sweep over." Sorry but Communism doesn't work. It hasn't worked in any country. "China isn't capitalist. While it may have adapted some elements of capitalist economies, it is still a textbook example of a communist country."Capitalism is against communism, that's the point of it. So you can't have textbook communism with elements of capitalism, it doesn't make sense.

@Felicia5567 I'm sure Americans also restricted the usage of Internet in Cuba. And restricted Cubans rights to private business. In fact Americans probably restricted so many things in Cuba that that's why Cubans leave to the United States the first chance they get.

They don't. Cuba has better social security, better health care, better education. No one died during the hurricane, because it has better disaster management.

China is communist. You have no idea about political theory either apparently. Capitalism is vital to Marxist development, for example. It's seen as a tool to support the communist ideal, not as an opposite.

You have to look at the places that actually fueled economic growth, which is why I highlighted British Columbia.

Your parents were only able to legally migrate because laws allowed them to. If you want to close the doors to everyone, laws will not allow them anymore.

Honestly kid, this is tiring, it's obvious you have no background in this at all.

"Capitalism is vital to Marxist development" Communist revolution, civil war, take over of Russia. --> Confiscated people's property and money --> Mass executions of all enemies of the revolution--> Famines in the countryside --> Rebellion against the Communist government --> Put down of any rebellion or non violent form of resistance--> Executions of religious leaders and destruction of churches

Yes, sounds like Freedom and Capitalism was really emphasized. Except even Lenin realized that without capitalism shit isn't working and so people like my ancestors who had their property taken from them were once again allowed to own a private business. Until a few years passed and it was again made illegal. "If you want to close the doors to everyone"I never said anything about that. I'm against illegal immigration and immigration of undocumented people.

Again, you don't understand basic political theory. There is no capitalist-communist binary. Marxism and communism are not equal to Stalinism and Leninism. Those are different political thoughts. Communism in Cuba is different from China, is different from the USSR, is different from Laos, is different from Vietnam, etc.

I'm not advocating for communism, by the way. I don't think there is one political system that fits every culture.

Ok, what makes something legal then. If Trump gets his Muslim ban through, all those people will be illegals, because one orange shit face says so. If the PQ in Quebec wants to put one of their racist shit shows in place again, then that's law. Be smarter than that. Question the society you live in, c'mon. You have the curiosity and the intelligence, now go get the education and critical thinking skills.

@Felicia5567 What aren't I questioning?Do I think slaves and immigrants played a large role -- yesDid they play the major role -- no. The reason for a railroad is because other people need a railroad to transport products and expand their businesses, thus for Chinese to contribute they needed Canadians to contribute first enough so then they can, to in turn let Canadians contribute more. Communism does change in every country, and while it does bring some good services in, it also often leads to widescale death and poverty.

I however believe in freedom of choice and would allow sections of my country to experiment with communism if they consented to do so.

Because Islamophobia in the U. S. is stupid and pandering to uneducated Trump supporters who think being Arab and Muslim is the same. It's a racist ban that focuses on majority Muslim, Arab countries, except the ones that Trump has business ties with.

Slaves and immigrants built the U. S. and Canada. Your family is an immigrant family too. Chinese and African people did most of the construction on the railway, e. g. the hard work. Don't just dismiss that. And we haven't even started talking about Native Americans.

Capitalism causes deaths too, every political system has the option to do so.

You're not questioning the popular narrative, everything you say is bullshit from the internet that you haven't properly researched. You're not questioning the fact that legality has nothing to so with justice, legality just reflects the current attitude of whoever is in power. You're not questioning the global dynamics that shape societies.

@Felicia5567 "You're not questioning the popular narrative, everything you say is bullshit from the internet that you haven't properly researched. You're not questioning the fact that legality has nothing to so with justice, legality just reflects the current attitude of whoever is in power. You're not questioning the global dynamics that shape societies."What am I not questioning?

If it were me I would impose the ban on Saudi Arabia.

"It's a racist ban "Not really, a country can ban anyone they want from entering, especially people who come from countries filled with terrorists.

"Slaves and immigrants built the U. S. and Canada. "Yes, immigrants from the UK and France. They set up the colonies and built towns and trade routes long before anyone else arrived.

None of those countries are filled with terrorists. Don't be as stupid as the Trump supporters. If you look at statistics of terrorists, the countries that produce most terrorists aren't even on the list. Furthermore, most terrorists aren't immigrants, but people who were born abroad and are citizens.

No, not just immigrants from the UK and France. Also immigrants from Africa and Asia, as well as all the First Nations living there already. Stop erasing history. I lived as a white person in Canada for a few years, no one ever questioned my background, even though I wasn't born there. My friend who has dark skin who was born there and has lived there her whole life was constantly told to go back to her country. Trying to say that only people from the UK and France built Canada erases everyone else's experiences and fuels racism. Stop being ignorant man.

@Felicia5567 "Trying to say that only people from the UK and France built Canada" that's not what I said. "None of those countries are filled with terrorists" Compared to Canada they are. It's why this group called Isis was able to form in Iraq and Syria and survive for a couple years despite having tens of thousands of KIA. That means easily over a hundred thousand men fought and policed the areas occupied by Isis.

@Felicia5567 Yes, from non European nations there should be stricter control to try to ensure that they actually want to benefit the society rather than take from it. As well as if they believe in some of the fundamental aspects of western civilization, such as the freedoms people have and the limits to them, respect of women and/or people of other backgrounds, etc.

And that is called racism. You set different guidelines for people based on their ethnicity based on stereotypes you have. Also why do white people get to decide? First Nations already stated on multiple occasions that they are ok with immigrants. I mean, they let you guys in too.

@Felicia5567 I don't care what you call it, I care more about preserving our way of life than labels. "Also why do white people get to decide? First Nations already stated on multiple occasions that they are ok with immigrants. I mean, they let you guys in too."We decide because it is our country. I don't see anyone complaining about Japan despite it's immigration policy being much stricter than any white country's.

If 30% of group B tells Group A "We want to kill you" and only 1% of Group C says the same, then it only makes sense to apply more scrutiny to Group B.

Most Arab people are regular people who have no interest in killing anyone. You are racist for making those assumptions. That's what I mean when I say you lack critical thinking.

Yes, people are complaining about Japan. Ask all the Koreans and Chinese people who are trying to emigrate to Japan. Japan has language requirements that are hard to fulfill, not ethnicity based regulations. And Japan has made it easier for people to immigrate.

Your family moved there within the last century. What if the people then would have said, no we don't want Eastern Europeans, they don't fit our way of life? There are so many studies that show that second generation immigrants are completely integrated into society already. People who cry about sharia law in Canada are ignorant fear mongers.

Your racist way of life isn't more important than someone else's actual life. Islam teaches compassion, so maybe you would benefit from learning something from Muslim immigrants.

My home country in Europe has over 50 percent of immigrants and we're doing great. We increased language education and offered courses for parents as well. We are one of the countries with the highest GDPs in the world because we aren't stupidly hung up on racism like the U. S.. Canada can be better too, unless you wanna think like some uneducated redneck.

@Felicia5567 Not Arabs, Islam has many versus about Jihad. So it'd be wrong to ignore their belief system which includes different rules on the treatment of women and the idea of Jihad."People who cry about sharia law in Canada are ignorant fear mongers. "Not quite, if I can complain about Christianity but cannot complain about Islam because I will be shunned socially then there's definitely something there. "we don't want Eastern Europeans, they don't fit our way of life" well then it's their choice. "Your racist way of life isn't more important than someone else's actual life. Islam teaches compassion"I haven't said anything about someone being better than another, just taking about differences. I have a black friend, 2 Muslim friends, a Catholic friend, atheists ones. I however don't have any friends who are extreme, all my friends agree that Canada is among the best countries on earth to live in. This is the thing that none of us disagree on.

@Felicia5567 "We are one of the countries with the highest GDPs in the world because we aren't stupidly hung up on racism like the U. S.. Canada can be better too, unless you wanna think like some uneducated redneck."If the US and Canada was racist then these countries wouldn't accept non White Immigrants. Except Wait. They DO. genius.

I see that your points involve labeling and name calling and mine don't, so while I'm trying to discuss my point with arguments you're mixing in not so good words that specifically target me.

I believe for example that Canada should limit the number of Orthodox Jews it accepts, does that make me anti semitic?

And one more thing you know nothing about, Islam. The Qur'an doesn't actually include anything on the treatment of women, those practices are cultural. Canada has laws, if someone does not abide by them, they get punished. So excluding people because you don't know anything about their culture but some right wing idiot brainwashed you is just silly. People fleeing from ISIS are fleeing for a reason. The travel bans in the U. S. are also based on country, not religion. Because discriminating against people based on religion is illegal under the constitution (in Canada as well).

And people in the U. S. and Canada are trying to restrict access for Arab immigrants. Fortunately most Canadians and Americans aren't racist like you are.

You're not talking about facts, you are spewing your opinions on things that you have no background in, that you are completely biased about, and that you don't seem to understand in any kind of coherent way.

@Felicia5567 I'm Jewish and have no problem restricting Jews, because many Orthodox Jews for example don't believe that women should go to school. Many spit on girls who do.

Terrorism in the countries my Family has lived in;Kazakhstan: Islamic terrorism, rare if any instances of other religious terrorismRussia: Islamic terrorism Israel: Islamic Terrorism Canada: Recent Terrorism is Islamic This is out of religious terrorism. In Canada there are other terrorists but their motives tend to be Political, especially prevalent in the past with Quebec.

Again, uncritical. What does the word terrorism mean? It has been consistently used to refer to Arabs and Muslims since the Iraq war. There are countless documents highlighting how the word has been used in the U. S. to create the image of the Arab "other" and justify a war that was illegal under international law.The word isn't used to describe foreign attacks, it's specifically used to refer to Arab and Muslim attacks, even if they are citizens. Compare this to mass shootings by white men.So if you looked at actual attacks, rather than a politically loaded word, you would find that white American men are responsible for more attacks in North America, than Muslims/Arab men.

Again. There are laws in Canada, and immigrants have to follow them. If people prevent girls from getting an education, then that's illegal and punishable. Regardless of your religion.

@Felicia5567 ", it's specifically used to refer to Arab and Muslim attacks, even if they are citizens. Compare this to mass shootings by white men."A terrorist attack is an attack with a political motivation -- religion counts as political.

If a Muslim kid walks into his school and guns down his classmates because they bullied him for years on end it's not terrorism as the motivation was personal. If the same kid tells police "I did it to serve Isis" then it's terrorism as the reason was political.

Average Muslims in NA tend to not kill people because they bullied them or did other things. however they tend to kill others because of religion.

Which is why it's much smarter to identify your perpetrator in an effort to stop such incidents. If you know that school shooters tend to be white and you have reason to believe that there will be such a shooting, then it only makes sense to target whites more than others.

Racism is a political motivation. Yet racist shootings weren't recognized as a terrorist attack if perpetrators are white. That Nazi who drove his care into a group of anti-fascists, he was politically motivated. Did the president call that out as a terrorist attack? Nope.

Scholars have been discussing the Islamophobic use of the word for years, it's not news. Again, something you'd know if you's open a book sometimes.

@Felicia5567 And again you can only resort to talking about me being racist or not opening a book, or being 'a kid'. Very nice.

The point being that you recognize what kind of crimes types of people commit. I think no one will disagree that most school shooters are white. Why wouldn't it make sense to expect a white shooter to be white?

"Yet racist shootings weren't recognized as a terrorist attack if perpetrators are white. That Nazi who drove his care into a group of anti-fascists, he was politically motivated."It's not my country. However killing someone for racist reasons doesn't automatically make them terrorists. Same as the school shooter, it depends on the motive. The same way the school shooter can hate his classmates a guy can hate Asians. But is he killing them in advancement for a social/political goal or because he simply wanted to. "Racism is a political motivation." this would depend on your individual definition.

Because the situation isn't as black and white as you think it is. There are shooters of all ethnicities and there are people who drive vans into crowds of all ethnicities. Expecting someone to be a certain ethnicity would be stupid, as it could lead to you ignoring the actual perpetrator. Let's say there's a Black shooter, and we're only looking for white shooters because that's statistically more likely. It doesn't make sense. You should see a crime, get the evidence and look for the perpetrator, not be blinded by your biases and expectations.

No. Racism is political. It is not subjective. Also, you are basing your opinions on incidents that did not happen in Canada, but then say "that's not my country" when you're at a loss of words. Unless you determine what definition of terrorism you want to use, you shouldn't use the word.

None of you arguments are based on facts or knowledge. You only depend on your biases and unbacked opinions. Which is why you should grow up and read a book

@Felicia5567 Each country has it's own official definition. As far as I know in Canada Racism wouldn't count as terrorism though I'm not quite sure what our government counts as terrorism.

Well if you know that your shooter is more likely to be black it helps narrow down your search a bit, and if it comes back blank then it's not like you weren't looking into others, you're just allocating resources to the most likely demographic for that specific crime.

"None of you arguments are based on facts or knowledge. You only depend on your biases and unbacked opinions. Which is why you should grow up and read a book"What? Which facts have You brought?other than acknowledging my younger age..

So Susan B. Anthony supported prohibition and, by definition, the rise of organized crime in America. Smart move! Given that, she should have been the poster child for all the reasons why women should have NOT been given the right to vote. FYI, the women's vote has been bankrupting this country, and destroying the Constitutional fabric of this country, going back to 1919.

Also, Cleopatra and Queen Elizabeth were advised by and controlled by more knowledgeable men in the background who made the real decisions. Who are you trying to fool?

I don't think there's any real difference in intelligence between the genders. What might skewer things would be that girls and women are not permitted to attain an education in certain cultures and societies. There will always be intelligent men AND women, just like there will be dumbshits among both sexes. By the way, you left out Pharaoh Hatshepsut. She not only ruled Egypt wisely and peacefully, she explored and expanded trade.

This is so fucking stupid. Intelligence and IQ are not at all the same thing. You just sound like another stupid woman who thinks that women are smarter than men. If that was the case, the world would be run by women and not by men.

At the end of the day IQ means nothing and neither does intelligence. Integrity is all that matters and you have absolutely none.

2

0|2

1|0

myTake Owner

"... who thinks that women are smarter than men." No? I don't think that? Can you tell me where in that post did I even say or implied that? Yeah... nowhere. You're just another idiot male who thinks that just because Albert Einstein and Bill Gates are men, that they represent all men.

Fantastic. Congratulations at proving my point completely and adding sexism to the list of atrocities that you made in the first place. You are a real piece of shit.

The first fucking thing you mentioned was IQ. Why has no women in the world ever been given an IQ higher than Stephen Hawking? Why is a man still the holder of the highest IQ? Why do men predominately oversee almost all countries on earth?

Please don't answer any of these questions because I don't believe you can have a rationale debate without resorting to sexist, stereotypical bullshit. The whole fact that you have chosen an MGH and not MHM is just further proof that you don't care about men's opinions. You only care about living in a stupid echo chamber where you circlejerk and stroke your own female ego. Look around, not a single male agrees with you.

from the women around me and the women i know, i can say that while women are not dumb, they are usualyl not interested in achieving in the same way men are... men love to invent and make new things , women are more than happy taking the things men make and working with that to achieve somekind of a higher status... i rarely if ever hear of a woman starting something... they just dont

@cipher42 What you’re describing is a biological difference, applicable to neanderthals.

We’re talking about society here, at the point we started planting crops, building houses and covering up with clothes... why did women in their infinite wisdom, with their steely resolve, not take control of society? Instead men decided to take charge and the women submitted - that’s called drive.

Because physical abilities did still matter in human society, especially in early human society. Women being able to get pregnant and their general relative physical weakness made them less independent and more needing of protection, whereas men's greater physical strength and lack of the ability to get pregnant (and thus be vulnerable and tied down) made them more independent and more powerful.

@Chipher42 is correct here. Lots of men say women simply didn't want to take charge. It's not that simple. The one trait that men were dominant in, was PHYSICAL traits- not getting pregnant and having more physical strength. THAT alone gave them the *huge* advantage of being able to take over society.

If we both were able to get pregnant, and we both had the same physical strength, I guarantee you that men would probably not be the ones dominating society as of now. Those two seemingly innocent traits made us stay where we are, and men took advantage of that.

Women now who are doing amazing work in all fields of science and art and politics aren't different from women centuries ago. If women of the past would have had the legal right to vote, birth control and social support, they would have made just as many inventions. We aren't any better than people in the past, we just have more opportunities.

"Nobels and dumb bells" theory. Women cluster around the middle and men produce way more idiots and nearly all the geniouses. Spells out bad things for science and acedamia which is driving men out in favor of Marxist equality of outcome. Also women did not adopt gender roles, it's a result of human biology. Women get pregnant, men do not, women give birth to and raise children and men provide since they do not give birth. Men's bodies are built for work and war, women's bodies are built for taking care of children, right down to brests that produce milk to feed babies.

... and Man has Invent 99% of everything exists in this world (food to rockets) plus your Internet, your clothes, your PC and your iPhone X.

Another stupid Feminist Take trying to put women in a pedestal and make them better than everything no matter what.

But this arrogance/self-affirmation ends when they have to share the Restorant Bill or their Car Break.

0

0|0

1|0

myTake Owner

Yes, but without a woman... none of those things would've been possible. Why? Because a woman could've easily not taken care of her baby while they were in the womb, and outside the womb. Everything starts with a woman, and men tend to overlook the importance of that.

I didn't say I hated men nor I implied it... But I do hate people who keep implying that men's roles are more important, and trying to demean women. In most cases it's sadly turns out to be a man. Lol and no, I'm happily married with a man who is reasonable enough to actually value a woman, unlike you.

Its a long known fact that men are dumber, in general. The difference is men get shit done. Men instinctively learn to compete and adapt better than women. Women feel that men undermine them but if strength is only obtainable through gender and genes, then women should've been on the top of the food chain long ago.

I don't really see how this contributes to anything.. Also IQ tests are a thing of the past, all they test is how well you do on IQ tests.. ps: I would post in your examples first and foremost Maria Skłodowska-Curie, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, Maria Agnesi, Rosalind Franklin, Elizabeth Blackwell, Maria Maier and many many more before the ones you posted.

And we should care about this why? And you came up with all this all by yourself?

1

0|1

5|0

myTake Owner

No. I was just so bored to the point that I was like why not. I didn't really put much effort into it really. I'm actually shocked this is featured. There was no intention to grab people's attention. Lol

@PrincessPie - would make one wonder how I got so many MHO's eh? Naw, the bitter one is staring at you in the mirror. :) The problem is you live in a bubble, a world of puppy dogs, rainbows, and pink unicorns, and reality is just way too hard to deal with. The truth to you sounds bitter and negative - that's YOUR problem, not mine.

So we got a question here in this thread that is completely irrelevant to pretty much anything, and the asker admits it's pretty much just mental masturbation. And that's why I commented, look at the reply!

@Browneye57You never say anything of any use apart from insults, you clearly don't get that many "MHOS" because you have only 14%.. I live in a bubble of puppy dogs, rainbows, and pink unicorns, Lol and you would know this how?

I've never seen you comment anything nice anywhere, so yes i'd say that was the definition of bitter, if you don't care you shouldn't be commenting.

@PrincessPie - So here's the thing... I've been married for almost twice as many years as you've been on the planet. I have more experience in relationships, romance, and sex, than you'll ever have, ever in your life. And I share the unvarnished truth, the bare-bones of reality, which looks negative and ugly to someone so fair as yourself. But instead of asking for clarification, or asking why, it's all just bitter. But you see, I'm way past the stage of even giving a shit - it is what it is. Like it, follow, learn, or not, it really doesn't matter. But going all sanctimonious and whining about it looks just silly.

Lol i'd rather not learn from someone so narrow minded thanks, but yes i've heard you say this all before as you say the same things every time someone challenges one of your opinions.I'm not going to reply again.

Both men and women are important to society and they are both capable of intelligent contributions. That being said I don't think that they excel at the same things, but who cares as long as they contribute on their area of specialization

Seems legit. would explain why females are filling more spaces in uni's etc. Mind you... who do we rely on to progress in society? The elite intellects who invent and pave the way for us. The vast majority of those are males..

1

0|1

1|0

myTake Owner

Women didn't have the chance to actually achieve many things because men were oppressing them. Physical strength was vital when we were talking about dominance. Men were always physically stronger, and women got pregnant. All these variables come into play, but that doesn't mean women are less or more. It just means there were intervening obstacles which didn't allow us to work the same way. However, as society actually realizes this, more women are stepping forward. But there's still lots of dirt under the rug. Everyone simply ignores it, because women still earn less than men because society still expects females to be homemakers and stay-at-home moms. This needs to change.

It won't as long as women like keeping those roles. Not all women of course but a lot. How many women still seek out men for financial purposes, sugar daddies? How many women still want men to pay on dates etc.

Most of the greatest accomplishments of mankind have been by men, and that will always be the case. Men and women have had different roles throughout history because they have different strengths, interests and motivations, and those things have little to do with intelligence.

Men and women have different strengths and are motivated and driven by different things, and that is why men have had and always will have grander achievements than women. Men make things possible, and that has enabled women to participate in society the way they can today.

Just one example of many... go to the symphony and you will be treated to beautiful music from instruments played by men and women. Those instruments were invented by men. Do yourself a favor and do a little research on how a piano works. It's pretty amazing. Did you know it is a stringed instrument just like a guitar, and uses spruce soundboard, just like a guitar? Probably not, because women don't give a shit about those sorts of things, but they fascinate me and many other men.

The piano was invented by a man. If we waited for a woman to invent a piano, we would never get to hear one, ever. But lots of women play the piano, thanks to the achievements of men.

Doesn't mean men are any more or less intelligent, but they accomplish things women will never accomplish, because men and women are different and always will be. That's the critical piece this MyTake is missing.

3

0|3

2|0

myTake Owner

You can't simply sit there and assume that most greatest achievers were males "because they're males". That is a very simplistic point of view that requires research, on YOUR part.

WHY have they been the greatest achievers? WHY have they been more encouraged and motivated to do the harsher work? Have you actually sat down and thought through the possibe, REAL reasons why this could be? Or you simply wanna stick to your narrow-minded view of "Women are just inferior"?

Do some research. There are grounds on here that many haven't touched and that's why they're getting misinformed, and create excuses

A woman would never have invented the piano, ever. A woman would never have done what the Wright brothers did, which has allowed modern society to become what it has. Without men, women would still be in the stone ages.

Women have their own strengths, but not ones that drive them to achieve the truly monumental things that advance society by leaps and bounds. Those are things men do, because men are different in key ways.

I know that's not what your teachers tell you because it's not politically correct. But it's the reality of humanity.

"A woman would never have invented the piano, ever. A woman would never have done what the Wright brothers did, which has allowed modern society to become what it has." How do you know that? What are your reasons?

"Women have their own strengths, but not ones that drive them to achieve the truly monumental things that advance society by leaps and bounds." Again, how do you know? You're literally just spewing bs in a polite way, but it still screams *IGNORANCE* on your part.

You're just trying to make excuses and encourage female oppression, in a very very subtle way. Nice try, but I'm not buying it. Because there's absolutely nothing in your comment that is believable or reasonable

Tell me, do you think if we waited long enough that a couple of sisters would have done what the Wright brothers did? Do you even know what they did? Honestly? Come on now...

Do you honestly think a woman would ever have done what Andrea Amati did when he invented the violin?

Do you honestly think women would ever have discovered steel and learned to process it and use it to build our modern infrastructure?

Do you really think women would have invented the internal combustion engine, or even figured out how to refine the fossil fuels needed to run them? Can you imagine where society would be without those things?

Well a woman developed the first user friendly computer system so I guess we all wouldn't be arguing on the Internet about this if it wasn't for women. *Irony*Scientific inventions aren't about superior intelligence, even Einstein knew that. It's all about serendipity, being at the right place at the right time. If he wouldn't have developed relativity theory, someone else would have. A bunch of other people like Max Planck were working on the same issue. Historically women weren't allowed education which made it harder for them to be lucky with inventions. We still have amazing scientist like Marie Curie, mathematicians like Katherine Johnson, and molecular biologists like Rosalind Franklin who were monumental in scientific advancement. Franklin is interesting because two young male inexperienced scientists stole the credit for her discovery of DNA and won the nobel price for it. Point is, there is not inherent difference in drive, just social oppression and exemption from education.

@Felicia5567 There are certainly exceptions to every rule. Of course there are women who have done great things. But they are few and far between. There are significant differences in what drives men versus women. Don't mistake what I said to mean women are not driven... that's not the same thing. But men are absolutely motivated by different things, and that is why men are far more likely to tinker and invent and think about how to accomplish something that could change the world.

Women are not socially oppressed in the West today, and they are generally better educated than men are. But regardless, when someone develops the next major advancement or new technology that will make history and change the direction of the human race forever, the odds of that person being a woman are slim.

Ok, my grandfather was a mechanic. He wanted to open his own shop together with my mother. But she wasn't allowed to go to mechanic school where I'm from, which is a wealthy European country. So she couldn't get a license and went into the service industry instead.

That was one generation ago. So no, it's not because women don't like tinkering and being creative and being inventive. It's because even one generation ago, women weren't allowed in most of those professions.

Yes, and when men discover radiation and DNA and calculate the trajectory of the first space craft to orbit the earth, I'll listen. But oops, that has been done by women already. You're ridiculous. Women have made discoveries despite not being allowed in most scientific professions up to recent history. That doesn't mean all the discoveries by men are any less valuable. What it does mean, is that women are just as driven to create and discover and work hard. And more and more, we actually have the opportunity to prove ourselves.

@Felicia5567 Three examples of female achievements are literally insignificant compared to thousands and thousands of male accomplishments. And let's be honest here... calculating the trajectory of (one of) the first space craft to orbit the earth was a tiny piece of the bigger picture compared to the many much larger all-male accomplishments involved in conceiving of and planning the mission, designing and building the space craft itself and all the materials that went into it. The trajectory things is teenie tiny by comparison, but it makes for a nice movie so all know about it.

Society loves to celebrate the few major female accomplishments that actually make a difference to mankind because they are so few and far between and we are still trying so hard to send the message that women can do great things, much the way parents make a fuss about the accomplishments of a child.

But the achievements of men day in and day out fly mostly under the radar because they are essentially routine. They are a fact of life, not nearly as noteworthy as the flash in the pan that is a significant female achievement.

But we can't say all that out loud any more than we can tell a child what they did is just expected and not worthy of special consideration. That is the reality of our world today. Whether or not you choose to have the honesty to see it for what it is... that is up to you.

I'm not saying men have not achieved anything. Men have been creating and discovering for ages. And men are recognized for it. Which is why most nobel prices go to men. And why men get the nobel prices for discoveries women actually made (Rosalind Franklin). The thing is, scientific discovery is a matter of serendipity. In case you don't know what that means, it's being prepared and lucky. Most major scientists will tell you that if they didn't discover something, someone else would have.

In order to be prepared, you need to be educated in the field, have connections, and be able to work in the field. Women weren't allowed in the fields, hence women couldn't be serendipitous. It's really not that hard to understand unless you are blinded by your dogma. But go ahead, keep giving information like "men are more driven", which is not backed in any scientific literature. It just shows that you really don't understand how science works.

@Felicia5567 I'm well aware of what serendipity means, and I'm quite well educated, having two college degrees, including a masters. I'm also quite familiar with academia and how it works, and there are some things that would never be put in print despite the fact they are well known to be true. We just don't say them anymore, which gives people the false impression they are no longer true. But they are.

I will say it again... women are not any less driven than men; they are simply driven by different things. They care about different things. They have different interests and priorities. And those are the reasons men invent and build things and women don't, or at least do so at a MUCH lower rate than men, and always will.

@Felicia5567 Your explanation that throughout history women have not had the opportunity to achieve had merit years ago, but that card is well worn now and has lost its sheen. Women have been receiving university degrees at significantly higher rates than men for years now. There is literally nothing stopping a woman from becoming an Elon Musk and employing men capable of creating the new transportation system he envisions.

Which is why nobel prices for women have been on the rise. Which is why women are getting into higher positions more and actually start being project managers and lab leaders and are receiving funds for their projects now. We aren't driven by different things. Some men are driven by wanting to have good family lives, others want to revolutionize physics. Same with women. Which is also why there are more and more childless couples and single head families there now. Because women are choosing their creativity and careers over the traditional gender stereotyped that you are so hung up on. Get with the game.

For someone with two degrees, you're pretty bad at basic logic. As a woman working on her third degree in STEM and working full-time at the same time, I can guarantee you, I will do great things in my field. And so will all the amazing women I work with.

@Felicia5567 Anyone who knows me will tell you I'm actually extremely logical. I've been told that all my life, especially by my peers and professors. I'm very logical and honest, and above all, realistic.

I admire your idealism. Good for you for pursuing your dreams, and I sincerely hope you become one of the few women to actually achieve something really monumental, which actually has real benefit in terms of advancing humanity... like men do regularly. Best of luck to you.

Until then, there's really no sense in continuing this discussion. I'm out.

Yep, go back to your alternate reality. I'm gonna stay in my reality, which is based on facts and statistics, not on interpretations that justify a distorted view of reality. I'm going to stay in the actual reality, which doesn't have anything to do with optimism. It's purely factual. Since women have received equal voting rights and education and positions within the sciences, female participation has steadily increased, as have prices for female scientists, including nobel prices. The logical conclusion is that women do just as well as men if given the opportunity.Now go away with your misogyny, your bias is way to obvious.

@Felicia5567 See, that's just the problem... what you are saying is NOT factual at all. You have very, very little in the way of facts and statistics to back up what you're saying. Your argument is essentially "wait and see; it will come with time" because it sure as hell hasn't come yet. The examples you've given are minuscule by comparison to male accomplishments.

You keep mentioning Nobel prizes (and you have misspelling it every time). Linked below is a list of all the Nobel laureates since 1901. The first women to receive a Nobel Prize was in 1903. Since then there have been 47 additional Nobel Prizes given to women, and over 800 given to men. Considering how much easier it is for women to get into STEM fields today we would expect to see a hell of a lot more than that is your "facts and statistics" held any merit.

English is my fourth language, yet I'm having these discussions with you, so you can get hung up on obvious spelling mistakes, or you can stick to the point.

The thing that you don't understand is a trend line. If there were 0 female nobel laureates 100 years ago, and 43 now, that's a drastic increase. Furthermore Nobel prizes usually go to the top scientists on the study, and not the thousands of people who work on it. Since gendered discrimination in STEM is well-known, these tend to be older men. So, the women who are at university right now in large numbers, don't reflect the people who are leading the research teams yet. But as Nobel prizes (and many other science prices) for women are increasing, and educated women are increasing, it is safe to say that the statistics are in favor of my argument. Gendered discrimination is the biggest way standing in the way of women in science, not women themselves. Read a newspaper or a journal for once instead of wikipedia.

@Felicia5567 The primary gender discrimination in STEM today is how much harder and more expensive it is for men than women to get into it today. But the vast majority of female Nobel laureates were recognized for peace and literature, not anything related to STEM.

Yes, the numbers have increased somewhat in recent years, partly due to the pressure on the committees (half of which are already chaired by women, by the way) to try to select more women.

Regardless, the trend you speak of, if projected out into the future, would put women equal with men somewhere in the next century if it continued on the same slope, and that is a BIG 'if'. The bigger question is whether it will continue to be based on merit rather gender politics, and based on enormous political pressure being placed on the committees to "find" female nominees, I think that is very doubtful.

The people in the Nobel committee have explicitly said that they don't look at gender. They noted that the issue is that the department heads and heads of study, who get the price, tend to be male. Take the nobel prize in physics for gravitational waves, it was received by three scientists, even though hundreds had worked on the project.

Women consistently make up less than a third in STEM professions, and many female scientists who quit have exactly laid out why. There is a lot of gender discrimination, especially as there are still a lot of older men with past-generation values in leading roles. That's changing, slowly, but there is a lot of push for integration of women, in order to create a more accepting environment for women. Men don't have that problem. Many studies have found that men advance more easily, whether the work space is mostly male or female. Women advance more slowly if the work force is mostly male.

@Felicia5567 100% agree with you. I wish this man, with all his university degrees, would actually investigate thoroughly about this issue instead of further worsening it.

In the workplace, there are many problems women have to deal with even if men don't see it- because they don't have these problems. Harrassment, treating women as if they were children (I forgot the word, but it's defined as basically explaining things to women as if they were toddlers), not taking women seriously etc. All of this comes into play and are very very subtle, that's why men say women don't have issues anymore, and that they should stop "complaining" about gender discrimination because they don't actually experience it themselves.

Yes exactly! It's called patronizing, and it happens all the time. I started my career in computer science and can't even describe how many times men who were less experienced than men tried to talk over me or explain things to me that I do in my job all the time. It is so frustrating, especially when they do it in front of superiors. Or when we have groups projects and I come up with an idea, and then men present it as their own to superiors, without giving me credit. Literally happens all the time. I left my first company because I hated going to work and dealing with all those micro-aggressions every single day.

What Girls Said 7

That also means that you accept IQ scores as an actual measure of intelligence, rather than a tool that was designed with specific people in mind...Also where'd you get that data? Because from a simple google search it seems like there's no scientific consensus on the subject, it all depends on methodology and once you control for socioeconomic factors, there was no difference.

Yes, I mentioned this in a comment a little while back (about the bell curve). Intelligence doesn't necessarily show itself in accomplishment, sometimes the "smart" thing to do is live a normal happy life. Women tend to be less of risk takers and risk plays a much larger part in who is remembered, plus the attitude was different then. A woman was seen as useful for being supportive, helping a man achieve something held more value, just as raising children did.